Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO/Thermodynamics/Insulin- discuss!!
Replies
-
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.7 -
theledger5 wrote: »Read this article and a few others after a FB discussion on losing weight. I am confused now that losing weight is not just about CICO. Discuss!
https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant
Would you like to buy a bridge?2 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?3 -
I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because there is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.4 -
Nothing to add but in.0
-
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.
I am all for anything as far as diet that people can stick with as a permanent lifestyle change, but they should do so with the full knowledge of the reality of the situation and not harbor delusions based upon myth or pseudoscience. If people feel more full from keto, paleo, "eating clean" or whatever the hell else and end up eating less? Great! But they should at least be aware that their weight loss has nothing to do with their choice in food but on their caloric deficit. There are far too many people out there who actually believe that their weight loss success is tied to their fad diet of choice, which as we all know is nonsense.3 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989
This is actual scientist; from people actually trained and that conduct research. Fung is just another MD trying to play PhD/researcher to capitalize on the industry. MD's identify and treat disease. Researchers do all the upfront work.
Essentially, energy balance (CICO) is complicated and a variety of things can influence CO or absorption of CI. In the end, tracking calories over time and making adjustments is beneficial. But it does come down to CICO and in some cases you need to look at a variety of options (generally the lean treating to get leaner - thanks to adaptive thermogenesis).3 -
Just as the concept of CICO is over-simplified, so is Fung's argument in the article promoting LCHF in order to control insulin levels.
There is no mention of the GI (glycemic index) which is a measure of whether the carbs actually are likely to promote or depress insulin release (and hence depress or increase fat metabolism) or not and there is absolutely no discussion of the effect of the consumption of protein and its interaction w/low or hi GI carbs on insulin levels and muscle loss and/or growth either.
For another level of detail in this regard, see the following article as well:
https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html
The LCHF apporoach also does not explain how I lost about 39# of BW from 196 to 157 and dropped my BF from over 20% down to 10% in a year on a high protein high carb and low fat deficit diet with a macro ratio of 40P/40C/20F, which is entirely contrary to the LCHF concept.
He does discuss GI and also Glycemic Load in his book. I've read it. It is a strange mix of woo and decent info. It applies most to obese, insulin resistant people. His final recommendations are not unreasonable for sedentary dieters as well as obese and IR people. Lower added sugars and simple carbs, up fats, moderate protein, intermittent fasting. No flash of brilliance really. When I got to the conclusions/ recommendation, I kind of felt like "really? I read this whole book just for this?" For me the most useful idea is that IF can be helpful with hunger and satiety (Ghrelin and Leptin). Not an original idea of his. Others who have written on IF have suggested this.
But he totally denies calorie counting as a factor. Also, his references to Taubes, Lustig and Wheat Belly were real eye rollers for me. His clinic focuses on the obese and IR. Thus the name of his book "The Obesity Code" His methods would likely work well for that population. For most of us, all this focusing on hormones is truly majoring in the minors and just a distraction from keeping the focusing on the key things that will make a difference. Namely, eating less and moving more. We have a whole site here dedicated to helping to that. It will and has helped most people, even many that used to be obese!
I haven't read his books, but his blog is full of ridiculousness and hyperboles. And in all reality, if I am looking to learn about IF, then I will defer to Lyle McDonald and Martin Berkhan.. really the two who were ahead of the game. Seems like Fung is just taking their work, mixing it with Taubes' theories and calling it his own plan.
But I do agree for those who are not on MFP and are overly sedentary, would probably benefit from a reduction in carbs (or concentration on low GL ones) and could try fasting as a way to control calories.5 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
It's a bit complicated. It's a mixture of those actually diagnosed with diabetes (which includes prediabetes IIRC) and a survey of those who are undiagnosed (they did sampling/have assumptions based on criteria). It should also be noted the prediabetes creteria was decreased in the US about 5 years ago, which would increase the amount who have some sort of insulin resistance.1 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
"In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908112428.htm
That's just for prediabetics and diabetics. It does not include the obese. That would raise the number further because not all T2D and prediabetics are obese. I was not even overweight.
That also excludes those with insulin resistance that manifests in ways other than T2D, such as NAFLD, PCOS, and possibly alzheimer's.4 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.
I am all for anything as far as diet that people can stick with as a permanent lifestyle change, but they should do so with the full knowledge of the reality of the situation and not harbor delusions based upon myth or pseudoscience. If people feel more full from keto, paleo, "eating clean" or whatever the hell else and end up eating less? Great! But they should at least be aware that their weight loss has nothing to do with their choice in food but on their caloric deficit. There are far too many people out there who actually believe that their weight loss success is tied to their fad diet of choice, which as we all know is nonsense.
I can't seem to achieve a lasting caloric deficit without a ketogenic diet. Nor are my health issues addressed by SAD, or just an IIFYM style of diet. My calorie deficit had everything to do with my choice of food.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to just eat less and move more without altering their food choices.4 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.
I am all for anything as far as diet that people can stick with as a permanent lifestyle change, but they should do so with the full knowledge of the reality of the situation and not harbor delusions based upon myth or pseudoscience. If people feel more full from keto, paleo, "eating clean" or whatever the hell else and end up eating less? Great! But they should at least be aware that their weight loss has nothing to do with their choice in food but on their caloric deficit. There are far too many people out there who actually believe that their weight loss success is tied to their fad diet of choice, which as we all know is nonsense.
I can't seem to achieve a lasting caloric deficit without a ketogenic diet. Nor are my health issues addressed by SAD, or just an IIFYM style of diet. My calorie deficit had everything to do with my choice of food.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to just eat less and move more without altering their food choices.
How come? That is in the realm of special snowflakedness. You are different! How awesome.!6 -
Yet again another source on insulin that just looks at the one macro it wishes to demonise. No mention of the others.
It's majoring in the minors.4 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.
I am all for anything as far as diet that people can stick with as a permanent lifestyle change, but they should do so with the full knowledge of the reality of the situation and not harbor delusions based upon myth or pseudoscience. If people feel more full from keto, paleo, "eating clean" or whatever the hell else and end up eating less? Great! But they should at least be aware that their weight loss has nothing to do with their choice in food but on their caloric deficit. There are far too many people out there who actually believe that their weight loss success is tied to their fad diet of choice, which as we all know is nonsense.
I can't seem to achieve a lasting caloric deficit without a ketogenic diet. Nor are my health issues addressed by SAD, or just an IIFYM style of diet. My calorie deficit had everything to do with my choice of food.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to just eat less and move more without altering their food choices.
How come? That is in the realm of special snowflakedness. You are different! How awesome.!
We are all the same? What works for you will work for everyone?
I'm different! Different from others...Wow. How incredibly normal.
It's not about "special snowflakedness". People differ in the their dietary needs. Not everyone can maintain a deficit without dietary changes. People have different physical, or even psychological, needs. It isn't nonsense is my point.
Please note that I am not saying a calorie deficit is not needed for weight loss. I am saying that dietary changes may be needed to get that caloric deficit for various reasons.
13 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
"In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908112428.htm
That's just for prediabetics and diabetics. It does not include the obese. That would raise the number further because not all T2D and prediabetics are obese. I was not even overweight.
That also excludes those with insulin resistance that manifests in ways other than T2D, such as NAFLD, PCOS, and possibly alzheimer's.
One thing to keep in mind, those numbers a substantial amount "undiagnosed" people. And those numbers were done by a sample of a system based on self reporting and run through a regression tool. So it's as accurate as their methods. Also, prediabetes would put them at higher risk (remember US standards are much lower than other countries). It doesn't make them insulin resistant but at risk. Below are the new stats.
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014statisticsreport.html4 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
"In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908112428.htm
That's just for prediabetics and diabetics. It does not include the obese. That would raise the number further because not all T2D and prediabetics are obese. I was not even overweight.
That also excludes those with insulin resistance that manifests in ways other than T2D, such as NAFLD, PCOS, and possibly alzheimer's.
One thing to keep in mind, those numbers a substantial amount "undiagnosed" people. And those numbers were done by a sample of a system based on self reporting and run through a regression tool. So it's as accurate as their methods. Also, prediabetes would put them at higher risk (remember US standards are much lower than other countries). It doesn't make them insulin resistant but at risk. Below are the new stats.
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014statisticsreport.html
Yes, good points.
I think the prediabetes numbers are likely overestimated (and the US calls it prediabetes at a lower level than most other places), in part because it does not take into account that the people not tested are those less likely to be at risk. (I've been tested when overweight and generally not when not -- I'm not IR, anyway, never have been.)
An even bigger issue I see is that for probably the vast majority of those with prediabetes or IR who are overweight, merely losing the weight will fix the issue. The prevalence of T2D in populations with traditional healthy diets and low obesity, even when they are EXTREMELY high carb, is essentially nil. The prevalence in societies with western diets (even high fat and not particularly high carb diets -- which includes the US) but high obesity is, well, high, and it clearly increases as obesity increases.
I think there are some reasonably rare people who are either very sensitive to T2D or naturally IR who do better on lower carb for that reason (there are other reasons people might prefer lower carb, of course), even when they are a normal weight. But for many merely losing the weight is enough.
Other things good for IR include a traditionally healthy diet with lots of vegetables and, yes, even fruit, more fiber when you eat carbs, and, of course, exercise.1 -
Just as the concept of CICO is over-simplified, so is Fung's argument in the article promoting LCHF in order to control insulin levels.
There is no mention of the GI (glycemic index) which is a measure of whether the carbs actually are likely to promote or depress insulin release (and hence depress or increase fat metabolism) or not and there is absolutely no discussion of the effect of the consumption of protein and its interaction w/low or hi GI carbs on insulin levels and muscle loss and/or growth either.
For another level of detail in this regard, see the following article as well:
https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html
The LCHF apporoach also does not explain how I lost about 39# of BW from 196 to 157 and dropped my BF from over 20% down to 10% in a year on a high protein high carb and low fat deficit diet with a macro ratio of 40P/40C/20F, which is entirely contrary to the LCHF concept.
He does discuss GI and also Glycemic Load in his book. I've read it. It is a strange mix of woo and decent info. It applies most to obese, insulin resistant people. His final recommendations are not unreasonable for sedentary dieters as well as obese and IR people. Lower added sugars and simple carbs, up fats, moderate protein, intermittent fasting. No flash of brilliance really. When I got to the conclusions/ recommendation, I kind of felt like "really? I read this whole book just for this?" For me the most useful idea is that IF can be helpful with hunger and satiety (Ghrelin and Leptin). Not an original idea of his. Others who have written on IF have suggested this.
But he totally denies calorie counting as a factor. Also, his references to Taubes, Lustig and Wheat Belly were real eye rollers for me. His clinic focuses on the obese and IR. Thus the name of his book "The Obesity Code" His methods would likely work well for that population. For most of us, all this focusing on hormones is truly majoring in the minors and just a distraction from keeping the focusing on the key things that will make a difference. Namely, eating less and moving more. We have a whole site here dedicated to helping to that. It will and has helped most people, even many that used to be obese!
I haven't read his books, but his blog is full of ridiculousness and hyperboles. And in all reality, if I am looking to learn about IF, then I will defer to Lyle McDonald and Martin Berkhan. really the two who were ahead of the game. Seems like Fung is just taking their work, mixing it with Taubes' theories and calling it his own plan.
But I do agree for those who are not on MFP and are overly sedentary, would probably benefit from a reduction in carbs (or concentration on low GL ones) and could try fasting as a way to control calories.
Argee on all. Especially the bolded. It was from McDonald and Berkhan that I originally learned about IF. I just thought it interesting how it would apply to the obese and IR. The book is 4/5 of the same kind of thing as his blog with a conclusion to lower added sugar and simple carb, take in more fiber and IF while eating a low amount of complex carbs, moderate protein and higher fat. The conclusions aren't bad for sedentary, obese and IR. But the road he takes to get there is pretty ridiculous.0 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.
I am all for anything as far as diet that people can stick with as a permanent lifestyle change, but they should do so with the full knowledge of the reality of the situation and not harbor delusions based upon myth or pseudoscience. If people feel more full from keto, paleo, "eating clean" or whatever the hell else and end up eating less? Great! But they should at least be aware that their weight loss has nothing to do with their choice in food but on their caloric deficit. There are far too many people out there who actually believe that their weight loss success is tied to their fad diet of choice, which as we all know is nonsense.
I can't seem to achieve a lasting caloric deficit without a ketogenic diet. Nor are my health issues addressed by SAD, or just an IIFYM style of diet. My calorie deficit had everything to do with my choice of food.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to just eat less and move more without altering their food choices.
How come? That is in the realm of special snowflakedness. You are different! How awesome.!
Kind of harsh, don't you think? This person has a diagnosed pre-diabetic condition.
4 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
"In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908112428.htm
That's just for prediabetics and diabetics. It does not include the obese. That would raise the number further because not all T2D and prediabetics are obese. I was not even overweight.
That also excludes those with insulin resistance that manifests in ways other than T2D, such as NAFLD, PCOS, and possibly alzheimer's.
Thanks to you and psuLemon for the data that helped me to see how you were coming to your conclusion.0 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.
I am all for anything as far as diet that people can stick with as a permanent lifestyle change, but they should do so with the full knowledge of the reality of the situation and not harbor delusions based upon myth or pseudoscience. If people feel more full from keto, paleo, "eating clean" or whatever the hell else and end up eating less? Great! But they should at least be aware that their weight loss has nothing to do with their choice in food but on their caloric deficit. There are far too many people out there who actually believe that their weight loss success is tied to their fad diet of choice, which as we all know is nonsense.
I can't seem to achieve a lasting caloric deficit without a ketogenic diet. Nor are my health issues addressed by SAD, or just an IIFYM style of diet. My calorie deficit had everything to do with my choice of food.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to just eat less and move more without altering their food choices.
I don't think we're saying that, but you actually said it the right way. Keto => Calorie deficit (CICO) => Weight loss. The predominant thought pattern among CICO people is that if you eat more than you burn on a Keto diet, you will still gain weight.4 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
"In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908112428.htm
That's just for prediabetics and diabetics. It does not include the obese. That would raise the number further because not all T2D and prediabetics are obese. I was not even overweight.
That also excludes those with insulin resistance that manifests in ways other than T2D, such as NAFLD, PCOS, and possibly alzheimer's.
Pre-diabetes is a risk predictor and many epidemiologists are pushing back against this as it causing more harm than helping. I personally put no confidence in this - symptom chasing. It's a disease that never was.2 -
True that weight loss and maintaining a healthy body weight is a big factor. I have some genetic predisposition to T2D and IR based on family history. As a result I do eat lower carb, about 150 grams per day give or take. Together with exercise and a healthy body weight, I have been able to keep the number in decent range at age 66. Interestingly, it was a weight gain over time and slightly elevated A1c numbers that brought me here to start with 6 years ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
"In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908112428.htm
That's just for prediabetics and diabetics. It does not include the obese. That would raise the number further because not all T2D and prediabetics are obese. I was not even overweight.
That also excludes those with insulin resistance that manifests in ways other than T2D, such as NAFLD, PCOS, and possibly alzheimer's.
One thing to keep in mind, those numbers a substantial amount "undiagnosed" people. And those numbers were done by a sample of a system based on self reporting and run through a regression tool. So it's as accurate as their methods. Also, prediabetes would put them at higher risk (remember US standards are much lower than other countries). It doesn't make them insulin resistant but at risk. Below are the new stats.
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014statisticsreport.html
Yes, good points.
I think the prediabetes numbers are likely overestimated (and the US calls it prediabetes at a lower level than most other places), in part because it does not take into account that the people not tested are those less likely to be at risk. (I've been tested when overweight and generally not when not -- I'm not IR, anyway, never have been.)
An even bigger issue I see is that for probably the vast majority of those with prediabetes or IR who are overweight, merely losing the weight will fix the issue. The prevalence of T2D in populations with traditional healthy diets and low obesity, even when they are EXTREMELY high carb, is essentially nil. The prevalence in societies with western diets (even high fat and not particularly high carb diets -- which includes the US) but high obesity is, well, high, and it clearly increases as obesity increases.
I think there are some reasonably rare people who are either very sensitive to T2D or naturally IR who do better on lower carb for that reason (there are other reasons people might prefer lower carb, of course), even when they are a normal weight. But for many merely losing the weight is enough.
Other things good for IR include a traditionally healthy diet with lots of vegetables and, yes, even fruit, more fiber when you eat carbs, and, of course, exercise.
I actually eat fairly similar to what Fung recommends. Higher protein though due to strength training. I don't think his recommendations are way off. It's his rationale for deriving them that is mostly silliness.
0 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
"In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908112428.htm
That's just for prediabetics and diabetics. It does not include the obese. That would raise the number further because not all T2D and prediabetics are obese. I was not even overweight.
That also excludes those with insulin resistance that manifests in ways other than T2D, such as NAFLD, PCOS, and possibly alzheimer's.
Pre-diabetes is a risk predictor and many epidemiologists are pushing back against this as it causing more harm than helping. I personally put no confidence in this - symptom chasing. It's a disease that never was.
I just found it peculiar that their predicted values where 3x as high as their diagnosed values. That is what I would like to know. Is their sampling skewed or the methods set in a way that would correlate a higher value. From a political/funding standpoint, it would mean good things.3 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
"In 2011-2012, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults was 12 percent to 14 percent and the prevalence of prediabetes was 37 percent to 38 percent, indicating that about half of the U.S. adult population has either diabetes or prediabetes, according to a study in the September 8 issue of JAMA."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908112428.htm
That's just for prediabetics and diabetics. It does not include the obese. That would raise the number further because not all T2D and prediabetics are obese. I was not even overweight.
That also excludes those with insulin resistance that manifests in ways other than T2D, such as NAFLD, PCOS, and possibly alzheimer's.
Pre-diabetes is a risk predictor and many epidemiologists are pushing back against this as it causing more harm than helping. I personally put no confidence in this - symptom chasing. It's a disease that never was.
I just found it peculiar that their predicted values where 3x as high as their diagnosed values. That is what I would like to know. Is their sampling skewed or the methods set in a way that would correlate a higher value. From a political/funding standpoint, it would mean good things.
My guess is like most things this was intended as a wake up call and a preventive measure to combat obesity. What panels are seeing is an opposite reaction and a population reacting to incorrect root cause and incorrect corrective actions. In reaction health organizations are backing off this measure. Insurance companies have not however and this remains in most risk management systems.0 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.
I am all for anything as far as diet that people can stick with as a permanent lifestyle change, but they should do so with the full knowledge of the reality of the situation and not harbor delusions based upon myth or pseudoscience. If people feel more full from keto, paleo, "eating clean" or whatever the hell else and end up eating less? Great! But they should at least be aware that their weight loss has nothing to do with their choice in food but on their caloric deficit. There are far too many people out there who actually believe that their weight loss success is tied to their fad diet of choice, which as we all know is nonsense.
I can't seem to achieve a lasting caloric deficit without a ketogenic diet. Nor are my health issues addressed by SAD, or just an IIFYM style of diet. My calorie deficit had everything to do with my choice of food.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to just eat less and move more without altering their food choices.
Right, but you at least realize that it is the caloric deficit which is important. Eat too many calories on Keto, and you will become just as fat as someone eating ho-ho's and nachos2 -
It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)6
-
While insulin plays a definite role in metabolism, the promotion of doing keto is the dogma with the article.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Very good article.
You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.
CICO matters more than anything else when it comes to weight loss, gain, maintenance.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
Source?RAD_Fitness wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Very good article.
You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Very good article.
You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.
Wow! Okay. Give me your thoughts on how it is good. Confused how you can think other rules apply to calorie deficits.
Insulin sensitivity and nutrient partitioning have a massive effect on the amount and effeciency of fat loss compared to muscle loss in a calorie deficit
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions